The debate "Should NATO declare war on Boko Haram an ISIS affiliate" was started by
November 18, 2015, 4:40 pm.
10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 5 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Sosocratese posted 1 argument, DannyknowsItAll posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
TheFalseEnigma posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
DannyknowsItAll, Sosocratese, fredtyu, Tien, liamjosephcash, MrShine and 4 visitors agree.
TheFalseEnigma, AngryBlogger and 3 visitors disagree.
:3 NATO is a coalition of countries with the main goal of protecting it's constituents but I think that strategy woulld not fly.
NATO was first mobilized by USA as a counterattack for 9/11. It showed to us that NATO's capability is somewhat limited to the military powers it posses. When trying to deal with terrorist groups, it's not just the firearms you have to be concerned with but also the numerous agenda that goes with it. Mobilizing NATO would once again call for military-grade attacks. Doing so would just spice up the hatred and violence of terrorist groups. At the end of the day, NATO's forces might be able to kill the head of the terrorist groups but I doubt it will end such. Because what happens then is that, in the eyes of the terrorist, their leader has become a martyr. It only promotes more conflict and misunderstanding and provokes these terrorist to counterattack and sharpen their cause. There must be another way such as a diplomatic agreement (if ever that's feasible) or slow but effective war on terrorism, etc. though I cannot say for sure.
Though joint operations might prove more effective, I have little faith in any kind of campaign against ISIS or Boko Haram.
I don't know about Boko Haram, but ISIS, and their prevailing ideas, are not the outliers in that region. To my knowledge, many terrorists groups in the Middle East spawn from a general disdain for Western powers and their influence. I won't condone their maliciously actions, but one cannot really fault the population for their hatred when you consider the modern history of the region and how Britain, France, and the US undermined their leaders for decades. For that reason, I believe that Western countries should finally leave the region be and take a more defensive stance when it comes to the terrorists.
As for Boko Haram, a NATO coalition could save a lot of lives. I only say this out of speculation though. The fact of the matter is that Western Governments mostly ignore African countries and their many issues. My initial answer is yes for Boko Haram, but it's not based on any amount of logic or history. Take it with a grain of salt.
On an other hand western media ignores the threat Boko Haram has on African nations and the thousands upon thousands they brutally slaughtered.. any one that does that should be counted as a threat to world stability and be attacked in my opinion...
An international coalition would be much better than unilateral action. It would provide international funding for the campaign and hopefully an exit strategy.